Yesterday, a court ruled that Mahmoud Khalil—the Columbia University graduate who was arrested on Saturday for his role in pro-Palestine protests—will remain imprisoned in Louisiana while his case plays out in court. He is not, however, “in immediate danger of deportation” according to Department of Justice attorney Brandon Waterman.
Given the way Khalil’s case has been adjudicated in the court of public opinion, Waterman’s statement may come as a surprise to many. That said, it may not take long for his case to come to a conclusion.
Khalil is scheduled to appear before an immigration judge in Louisiana on March 27, though his lawyers are working to get him moved back to New York in the meantime. It’s possible that should they succeed, his trial will occur closer to his home there. And, if the scene outside the courtroom yesterday is any indication, he’d find himself amongst a much more sympathetic crowd.
But before we go any further, let’s take a step back and discuss a bit more about who Mahmoud Khalil is and why his case has generated such strong opinions on both sides of the debate.
Who is Mahmoud Khalil?
Mahmoud Khalil was a graduate student at Columbia University last year when protests rocked the campus and generated headlines. He was one of many who helped organize and lead those protests, though it’s unclear what role—if any—he played in the more disruptive elements like taking over buildings and forcing classes to close.
Khalil, who was born in Syria to Palestinian refugees, earned a computer science degree from the Lebanese American University before working for the British Embassy in Beirut. He came to America in 2022 on a student visa to pursue a master’s degree in international affairs at Columbia.
When the protests broke out at Columbia, he was part of the group attempting to mediate between university officials and the others who were part of the protest groups. He has been accused of helping to lead the Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD)—a student group wanting the university to divest itself of its financial ties to Israel—though he has denied playing such a role.
More recently, the Department of Homeland Security has accused him of “leading activities aligned to Hamas.” The White House has since claimed that he has also handed out pro-Hamas propaganda and supported the terrorist organization, though they stopped short of saying he was affiliated with the group.
To further complicate matters, upon graduating he switched from a student visa to a green card; a change that the DHS agents who arrested him on Saturday were apparently unaware had occurred.
That arrest has since sparked a heated debate about whether the government has overstepped in their attempts to deport Khalil for his actions on campus or if they are within their rights to send him out of the country.
Ultimately, that will be for the courts to decide, but their verdict is likely to have implications that stretch far beyond the current case.
Should Khalil be deported?
As Dr. Jim Denison wrote yesterday, the Trump administration is punishing the University as well, though Khalil is the first of the individuals who participated in those protests to face such a punishment. What many in these protests said, did, and stood for is antisemitic in nature and indefensible in both its ignorance of reality and defense of the unspeakable atrocities that occurred in the October 7 attacks. While there is competing evidence regarding the degree to which Khalil personally endorsed such rhetoric, those ideas are clearly wrong and unworthy of support.
However, that is not the question.
Rather, the more pressing issue is whether the government has the right to deport him for the role he played in speaking on behalf of those beliefs. And, honestly, no one really seems to know the answer.
The president signed an executive order during his second week in office intended to “combat antisemitism” on college campuses by threatening deportations and revoking visas of those who engage in such behavior. Yet it remains unclear whether that order gives the government the authority to arrest people without officially charging them with a crime—a step that, as of this writing, they have not taken with Khalil—or deport people for their speech.
The White House has cited the Immigration and Nationality Act for support. That law gives the Secretary of State the authority to revoke a green card or visa for those deemed a threat to the country’s national security interests. However, those statutes have typically required a more direct link to terror organizations to be considered applicable.
For all of his rhetoric and actions, there is little evidence to date that Khalil was a member of Hamas or was actively engaged in helping the group. As such, his case has largely been seen as an attempt by the Trump administration to define on its own terms when free speech goes beyond the pale of permissibility.
And that should make Khalil’s story relevant—and potentially troubling—to all of us.
Why I’m concerned about this case
As Isaac Saul wrote regarding Khalil:
“The entire point of free speech is to defend the principle even when you abhor the speech. I’m certain that Khalil and the organizations he affiliates with hold views I find abhorrent, and even if he publicly expresses them on a regular basis, I—along with anyone with real free-speech principles—should still defend his right to speak his views without fear of government reprisal.”
He’s right. Unless the government has evidence of a more direct and active link between Khalil and Hamas or other terrorist organizations—which is possible, if unlikely at this point—then they are dramatically lowering the bar for what can be considered deportable conduct.
If the government’s goal in doing so was to let those who supported Hamas know that they could be next, then mission accomplished. If it was to uphold the law and govern in accordance with the constitution, then they’ve missed the mark.
I know which of those priorities I would prefer for the president to focus on, especially since there are no guarantees that the next administration will not apply the same precedent to those who oppose abortion, stand for biblical sexuality, or support a host of other beliefs that were anathema to much of the popular culture less than a year ago.
You see, the problem with shifting your boundaries to accomplish your goals is that you lose the ability to cry foul when others do the same. One of the primary reasons why free speech is so important is that it enables us to advocate for the truth even when others don’t want to hear it.
Christ’s call doesn’t change
As Christians, there will be times when God calls us to stand up for some pretty unpopular and counter-cultural beliefs. It’s been like that from the beginning, and it’s not likely to change this side of heaven. So if anyone should be concerned about the potential abuse of power that would make it even more difficult and dangerous to express those beliefs, it should be us.
I don’t agree with what Mahmoud Khalil stands for or many of the beliefs his organization espoused. But that doesn’t mean he should be deported, and I am genuinely concerned about the precedent it would set if he is.
Either way, though, our job won’t change, and the truth Christ has called us to share will remain just as important regardless of what it costs us to share it.
How will you heed his call today?
Quote of the day:
“Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” —John Milton
Our latest website articles:
Denison Forum
DAILY DEVOTIONS, NEWS AND INFORMATION 